Talk:InuYasha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the InuYasha article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
This article was a former Anime and Manga CotW. (27 August 2006)
See how it improved – Before – After
InuYasha is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4


Contents

[edit] Time travel

Recently, I thought about putting Category:Time travel in fiction or similar here but was hoping someone could share their views beforehand. Does a magical well count as a form of time traveling (eg, from present-day Japan to Sengoku era)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the method of time travel matters. Whether it be magical well, lightning storm (Connecticut Yankee), or machine as long as there is time travel. I think that the the time travel aspect is big enough to warrant the inclusion of the category. Showers (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry to disagree with you two. The time travel has a minor role. There are only two time periods, and travel rarely occurs while other action is unresolved. Little attention is paid to the mechanism of travel. Travel is limited to two characters: Kagome, and InuYasha. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I agree with JRSpringgs. At least for now. Time travel does occur, but it's almost like being transported between two worlds you know.... If something (big enough) happens in Kagome's time because of the time travel, then I'd be happy to put "InuYasha" in that Category. BrianGo28 (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure. No time travel then. Didn't think it was really essential in the first place. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The main categories

I had a talk here with JRSpriggs concerning genres and would like to hear ideas from other "InuYasha experts". WP:MOS-AM#Content gives us the opportunity of 2 or 3 genres per article, no more than that. JRSpriggs, in the discussion, claimed that horror fiction could be one of them. I on the other hand, am more unsure now than I was before arranging the ones we currently have. After doing considerable literature research, I've come up with three possible solutions:

Option #1
Adventure; Sengoku era sword and sorcery
Option #2
Adventure; Sengoku era horror fiction
Option #3
Adventure; Sengoku era historical fantasy

This may be very tough to decide since it comes down to picking the best one for the article while thinking they all make sense. Unfortunately, the guideline doesn't work like that. If you ask me, options #1 and #3 make the most sense, though I still can't decide on one of them. Thoughts anyone? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I would go for Option 1. Option 2 doesn't make much sense. Horror doesn't really paint a particularly accurate image of InuYasha. 1 and 3 are both closer, but 1 makes a lot more sense. I don't see a lot in InuYasha that I would really describe as particularly historical. 'Historical fantasy' implies to me that it deals with history in a more fantastical way. InuYasha just takes a historical period as its setting and pretty much ignores everything else. So I think 1 is best.Kuwabaratheman (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Kuwabaratheman. --Eruhildo (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys. I too am thinking the first option has better relevancy with this particular series. Think Kuwabara hit the nail on the head with his reasons and pretty much got me convinced. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I've seen horror all too often misapply to works simply because they contain elements such as ghosts, ghouls, demons, vampires, and such and uses suspense. However horror fiction intends to scare, unsettle, or horrify the audience. Inu-Yasha, however, does not do that. --Farix (Talk) 00:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Right on. Would you pick Option #1 or #3? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure one of these options fit either. Simply list it as "Adventure, Fantasy" would be good enough. --Farix (Talk) 00:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you read into the links I've demonstrated? You may come to find that the first option is more pertinent than the other two. If one really had to be picked, which, in your honest opinion, would it be? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
But those three aren't very good options. I much prefer wolfmaster's suggestion below. So why limit our choices to only these three? --Farix (Talk) 02:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I vote for option #4: Adventure; Sengoku era fantasy Why do we have to use sub-genres that do not quite fit? --88wolfmaster (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fantasy includes magic and the supernatural, however, sword and sorcery also has that plus swashbuckling events, conflicts, and often romance, three elements which are as well frequent in InuYasha. I fail to see why we should use an incomplete genre and not the full one. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Normally I would go with fantasy, but I'm going to have to agree with Sesshomaru this time - sword and sorcery really does seem to apply better. --Eruhildo (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Sasshomaru? Not offended or anything, just gotta admit, his made me laugh a bit. Anyway, Farix, wolfmaster, can we concur now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Lol, I can't believe I did that. ^_^; --Eruhildo (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Believe it or not, people often misspell the name, so it's not unheard of. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Out of the three, option 1 fits the best. --88wolfmaster (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Horror? Inuyasha? Umm...Princess Tutu has more horror than InuYasha, so I'd go with a no on #2. Out of curiousity, what makes InuYasha fit into the Sengoku era (and why doesn't it just link straight to Sengoku period)? I seem to vaguely remember that Kagome went back 500 years, but anything to show for sure that it falls in with that time period? And as the series doesn't really focus a whole lot on the time period, is that really a good fit? Does being set in that alone make it part of the genre? Fantasy and adventure I'd be inclined to agree on. Sword and sorcery might be a good subgenre, though if they eventually lose, the world would probably be destroyed or something by Naraku, so it does have an epic quality. Collectonian (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Reason why it is [[Jidaigeki#Sengoku-jidai|Sengoku era]] and not [[Sengoku period|Sengoku era]] is because the first is a genre, whilst the other isn't (see the genre box on Rurouni Kenshin for starters). So then, Collectonian, which option are you inclined to select? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh. :) I could see why RK is in that genre, but I still wonder if IY fits, when there isn't much history discussed and no issues of time line manipulation and all that. I'd lean most towards option 1. It doesn't really focus a bunch on the historical aspects to be a historical fantasy, and definitely not a horror series. :) Collectonian (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it loosely fits into Sengoku-jidaigeki - it's set in the Sengoku-jidai and there are samurai (I'm counting Inu as one here), farmers, and craftsmen. Yeah, maybe a bit of a stretch, but I think it fits well enough to count. --Eruhildo (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Seems the majority go for the first option. Any comments before I update the genres on the article? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think "Adventure" is necessary because "Sengoku-jidai" already implies adventure: traveling, sword-fighting and all that. I don't like "Sword and sorcery" because InuYasha doesn't evoke the imagery most people associate with the genre. If the purpose of "Historical fantasy" is to note that InuYasha takes place in another time period, then it isn't necessary either because "Sengoku-jidai" already accomplishes that.
For now, I'd leave as "Sengoku-jidai" and "Fantasy" (no sub-genres).--Nohansen (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Kuwabaratheman, and others, option #2 just seem like a very poor description of Inu-yasha. And while #3 is better, as also has been noted, Inu-yasha isn't exactly big on history, so #1 would seem the best fit to me. Derekloffin (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It's really that sentence in adventure, "... the protagonist or other major characters are consistently placed in dangerous situations ...", which serves as a purpose of including this genre. "Sengoku-jidai" is but a main setting. I fail to see any implication of adventure there, especially because the entry doesn't give much. What is it about sword and sorcery that doesn't stand out for this series? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure you read me right there Sess, but to be extra clear I think sword and sorcery is the best match, #3 (history) while better than #2, still doesn't cut it as I said isn't exactly a big premise in Inu-yasha, despite the setting, and #2 (horror) I don't think even comes close. Derekloffin (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I apologize. That message was directed at the two users (ie, Farix and Nohansen) who do not think the options I presented were acceptable. Hopefully, they'll come around. I'll notify them that I will do the change tomorrow. My only wish is that everyone agrees in the end. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me further explain my position. If "Sengoku-jidai" is a type of jidaigeki that just happens to take place in the Warring States period, then it features all the trappings of the jigaigeki genre (and that includes sword-fighting, traveling and all that we associate with Samurai movies). If that's so, then "Adventure" would be redundant because "Sengoku-jidai" already covers that in a more specific manner.
When people think "Sword and sorcery", they think Conan the Barbarian and Dungeons and Dragons. InuYasha doesn't feel (to me) like Conan or D&D. Also, "Sengoku-jidai" already covers the "sword" half of the genre. The "sorcery" half is covered by the generic "Fantasy" genre. Same with "historical fantasy"; if it's purpose was to note the series takes place in another time period, then it isn't necessary either because "Sengoku-jidai" already accomplishes that.
That's what I think.--Nohansen (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you are taking the context too literal? If Sengoku-jidai-geki hints that adventure is present and if fantasy covers the magic elements then, yes, we would have our main, main genres. I can see how you came to this conclusion but you have to keep in mind that Sengoku-jidai-geki alone does not establish that, as adventure nicely puts it, "... the protagonist or other major characters are consistently placed in dangerous situations ...". Same goes for fantasy, which, as I explained way above, has sorcery and the like yet lacks the attributes from sword and sorcery. Do you know what those are? They are, and I quote, the "focus mainly on personal battles rather than world-endangering matters" and "romance". Now that I think about it, high fantasy should be preferred over sword and sorcery albeit that too misses some detail, like romance. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm still awaiting responses from Nohansen and Farix, but I can't wait long. Half a day; if no new ideas are given within that time, then it'll be Option #1. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've already spoken my piece, Adventure, Fantasy is my choice. I do not think the three choices you presented are appropriate or give the wrong impression. --Farix (Talk) 13:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a manga, what's it doing in a film category (i.e. Category:Sword-and-Sorcery films)?--Nohansen (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd support for the cat to be speedily moved to Category:Sword and sorcery. It matches the article's name. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
To Nohansen: There are four motion pictures (films) based on the manga and the derivative series of television programs. So putting it into the film category is not unreasonable. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Was this edit incorrect then? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To Sesshomaru: I could accept either way. The films exist, but they are not the most important part of the franchise. JRSpriggs (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Anything different you want to say about genre selection? Now that you're here, that is. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Take Category:Sword-and-Sorcery films to WP:CFR, or create Category:Sword and sorcery; it's up to you.--Nohansen (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll ask for a speedy rename. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming Conventions

The subject was never fully settled, I think, on dealing with some names. WhisperToMe brought up the issue of Tessaiga versus Tetsusaiga over on at the project, but I'm going to move the discussion here to ensure its available to all editors and in the article's talk archive for future referencing. First, here is WhisperToMe's original message and reasoning from the Tessaiga page (also posted to the project talk):

I propose that this is moved from Tessaiga to Tetsusaiga because:

  • All known versions of InuYasha published in the English language by VIZ Media in the U.S., Canada, and the UK use "Tetsusaiga" - therefore the name is best known in the English-speaking world.
  • There is known no reliable source that states that the change from Tessaiga to Tetsusaiga was an error on VIZ's part. See Wikipedia:RS - In order to make that assertion one must have a reliable source that explicitly states this. If we do not have a reliable source that states this, we cannot make that statement.
WhisperToMe (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Now, for my view, I agree with WhisperToMe's arguements. Tetsusaiga is the official English spelling and no one has yet to provide an actual reliable source stating the Viz spelling is a mistake in the almost FOUR years this has been an issue. Even if it were, it would not matter. Per the MOS, we should be using the official English spelling for the article name and throughout the InuYasha articles. At best, there should just be the appropriate romanization in the nihongo template on Tetsusaiga's page. I believe there are some other InuYasha related articles/topics that may also have this same issue. I think its time to get them all out, and hashed out, so please point out any others in subsections of this topic for discussion. Collectonian (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect romanization should be fairly easy to prove (I'm not aware of any valid scheme that renders a sokuon as "tsu"), and there are already a couple of footnotes on the Tessaiga page to this effect. Shiroi Hane (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
But we have no reliable source that states that the use of "Tetsusaiga" instead of "Tessaiga" actually was a mistake by VIZ. In order to make the statement one must have a source that unambiguously says that the use of "Tetsusaiga" was a mistake. The using the footnotes to make that argument would be Wikipedia:Original research - Besides, even if use of Tetsusaiga was an error, VIZ decided to continue using "Tetsusaiga." WhisperToMe (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
(Reply to Shiroi Hane) That is true, however, this is the English Wikipedia, so we use the official trade name per WP:MOS-AM#Article names and disambiguation. Viz chose to call it "Tetsusaiga". Whether that was a mistake or not, I don't know - we have no sources to say one way or the other. "Tessaiga" is the correct romanization of the kana, but should not be used throughout the article as it is not the official English name. I'm not saying we can't mention "Tessaiga" like the opening of the article does now, just that other than the explanation it should be "Tetsusaiga". --Eruhildo (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I was merely address the "no reliable source" comments. Shiroi Hane (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand the intention, but that does not satisfy the requirement. A source that explicitly states that VIZ made a goof is required. If there is none, then saying VIZ made a goof is original research. Also I second Eruhildo. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused; you didn't provide any sources for the English spelling at all. My whole point was that, regardless of the proper romanization, we should still use the official spelling per Wikipedia guidelines. --Eruhildo (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If it were merely a matter of translation, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The problem is Viz called the sword "Tetsusaiga" while the original Japanese series called it "Tessaiga". --Eruhildo (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You missed my point: Viz didn't call the thing "iron render", they called it "tetsusaiga". So use English doesn't factor into the equation, WP:MOS-JA#Romanization does. (Incidentally, see wikt:鉄) --erachima talk 05:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
We do not know whether VIZ goofed or whether the change to Tetsusaiga is deliberate. Either way VIZ has chosen to use Tetsusaiga instead of Tessaiga in all English adaptations, and so that is what we use as per the MOS and Use English. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you erachima. Tessaiga is consistently used. I for one do not believe it should be referred to as Tetsusaiga nor do I want to do the work required of a switch to ensure consistency. As for the OR claims, a rewording of the notes on the subject should be sufficient to correct this.--88wolfmaster (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Consistently used by whom? 1. We have guidelines that say use the name in English dubs and translated manga. Unless there is a compelling reason, we go by the guideline. As for this "As for the OR claims, a rewording of the notes on the subject should be sufficient to correct this." - A reliable source is needed to dispel the OR claims. Without a source nothing about this can be said; not even the "Tetsusaiga is an incorrect reading" can be concluded as that is likely irrelevant to the name itself. With no alternative published, official English-language versions that do otherwise, as per the guidelines we use Tetsusaiga. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
To clarify the OR - If only the ramanization is left it can not be OR. Since we do not have a reliable resource saying that VIZ did or did not intentional use Tetsusaiga then you are right its OR. As for the consistency, well i believe Tessaiga was consistently used because of the loop hole in the policies you mention - unless it is well known by another name. That is the main reason we use Goshinboku over the various english versions (its keeps consistency). --88wolfmaster (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Where is Tessaiga consistently used? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry throughout all InuYasha wiki articles. The policies have loop hole that says if the non english is more common then use it instead. It is for this reason I believe that Tessagia was originally used. It has since become the standard. I do not care if I end up on the "losing" side of this arguement as long as consistency is retained. Do you honestly reliese the amount of work it would be to switch this?--88wolfmaster (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It won't really take all that long, depending on who does it. Just find the usages, edit, search/replace, save, next. Consistency is important, and we should be consistent with the English spelling which is Tetsusaiga. And, BTW, while google results are not the best measure, Tetsusaiga InuYasha returns more results than Tessaiga InuYasha. Collectonian (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Support move due to the Google test evidence then, per WP:MOS-JA's Romanization guideline, which states that untraditional Romanizations by licensors are acceptable in place of Hepburn if they are more common than the normal Romanization is. --erachima talk 14:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I never saw it spelled "Tessaiga" until I looked it up on Wikipedia - and I've seen the anime in both English and Japanese (I couldn't read Japanese back then so I didn't know any better; I apparently couldn't hear Japanese either. -_-;). --Eruhildo (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So, may I start the move now? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - JPG-GR (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


So are you guys going to finishing the move anytime soon? Because, its not complete.--88wolfmaster (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing not. Sloppy restructuring is one reason why I don't bother much with manga/anime articles anymore.--Boffob (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The page was moved and instances fixed in dozens of articles. If some were missed, why not point them out or fix them? Collectonian (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clean Up Merging

I've tagged Tetsusaiga for merging to InuYasha (character), and Tenseiga and Tōkijin for merging to Sesshomaru. None of the swords meet the qualifications of WP:FICT having no significant coverage in multiple third-party sources that would allow for the articles to be rewritten from a primarily out-of-universe perspective. Both primarily just repeat the same plot points and abilities already listed in their wielders articles. Thoughts? Collectonian (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't mind a merge, especially since there is repeated information. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Merge away, but please be thorough. This kind of thing can result in dead links and double redirects nightmare, e.g. there are still many instances and links to Tessaiga.--Boffob (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I just went through and fixed all the articles that link to Tessaiga. No opinion on the merge (haven't looked into the articles much), but it's probably a good idea. --Eruhildo (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with the merge (not many new things to comment^_^).--Tintor2 (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slightly out of date

I'm certain that the latest manga chapter to be released is 556, not 555. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.116.152 (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)